Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., has said he won’t read the 7,100-word profile of him, headlined “God’s Senator,” in the current Rolling Stone, which has gotten notice mostly for the author’s questionable contention that he heard Brownback jokingly refer to gay Swedes as “fruits.”
“I generally don’t read hit pieces,” Brownback said.
But Kansans might want to read it, especially those who think they twice elected Brownback to represent them in the U.S. Senate. The article relates how Brownback, in a New York City church, raised a hand to the heavens and declared, “This is about serving one constituent.” How Brownback credits Pat Robertson with getting him elected. And how involved Brownback is in a secretive brotherhood of Christian power brokers called the Fellowship and as leader of the religious right’s influential Values Action Team.
Brownback confirmed last year that he won’t seek another term in the Senate, instead focusing on a possible 2008 presidential bid. But it’s increasingly fair for Kansans, reading such articles, to wonder whether their priorities are Brownback’s priorities.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
58 Comments
Be carefull, be very carfull. Those evil christions might sneak up and slit your throats in the middle of the night.
I would be very wary of any politician who had the backing of crazy Pat Robertson!
V.L.R.B!!
brownback has no chance.
If it wasn’t for the Capper Publications fortune, Brokeback Sam probably never would have even made it to the Senate.
Brownback has also turned in an abysmal financial disclosure for last quarter. If he wants to influence the process in 2008, he needs to raise a lot of money very quickly.
I think in the next 2 years we will see that Brownback pays more attention to Iowa and South Carolina than Kansas. He has a bad case of the presidential fever.
http://www.theantisam.com
The Anti Sam Brownback Blog
Both Brownback and Roberts have been nothing but lapdogs and mouthpieces for the President/GOP.
He doesn’t have a chance to be President, but he might get a strong VP nod.
What will be interesting in 2008, that this will be the 1st time in a long time that their will be no VP trying to take the office. It’s going to be open season. You think the nine Democrat candidates in the Primary in 2004 was a large bunch, wait until 2008 with both parties.
Of course, Our Sam isn’t up for re-election until 2010…time enough for everyone to forget his run for President…unless he’s really gearing up for 2012, assuming Hillary is elected in 2008.
“assuming Hillary is elected in 2008.”
I’m going to assume you’re joking.
Rhonda,
Let me get this right. Becuase Senator Brownback worships God and views him as #1 in his life you are saying he doesn’t have Kansan’s backs?
Let me clue you in on a little secret:
Every Christian should place God as #1 in their lives.
You know what is great though, is that we can do that and still represent others in our posistions!
Just like chewing bubble-gum and walking at the same time too!
Heckler, everybody knows Christians only gang up on people on dark lonely country roads, LOL!
Not that I would expect anyone in Kansas to believe that…
Brownback does not speak for me. Regardless of individual beliefs and religious views, I firmly believe the separation of church and state is there for a very good reason.
The constitution provides for freddom of religion(Christianity) not freedom FROM religion.
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
If he doesn’t get elected for President, then it just wasn’t God’s plan.
So nathan, he can’t serve his god and the people who elected him? It is either one or the other?
God’s plan for apostate Christian-zionists like Brownback involve fire and brimstone and not elected office.
V.L.R.B!!
Ian, you regurgitate the same old right wing religious crap so many ignorant and uninformed people have before you. How do you have freedom of religion when you cannot have freedom from religion? It is the same thing. And if you want to ignore that with some uneducated bs from your pastor then consider this. What is a religion? Religion is defined as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”. Or, a set of beliefs related to the existence of a god and his role in everyday life. Likewise atheism is a set of beliefs and practices also related to god, or the lack there of. Atheism is a religion without a god, but by definition, a religion. Now most atheists will disagree with that because they don’t want to be grouped with the Christian coalition and other like groups, but the fact remains that it is a form of religion..
Ian – the Constitution prohibits establishment of ANY religion.
Ben, lest we forget:VeryLowRegistration ofBrain activity
if Brownback has his way embryonic stem cell research from extra IVF embryos and nuclear transfer or therepeutic cloning (an unfertilized egg and one’s own DNA)would be criminalized to the tune of ten years in jail and $1 million dollar fine for any patient, doctor or researcher involved in it. I do not share his faith-based belief that these undifferentiated microscopic cells are people and think it is a violation of church and state and crime against humanity that I must suffer for his faith which I do not share.
Thanks, Wichita, for noticing the substance of my Rolling Stone story. The irony is that any reader alert to wordplay will pick up that Senator Brownback did not, in fact, call gay Swedes fruits, but that his clumsy speech put the two — biblical “fruits” and gay Swedes — together. Of course, that’s what happens when you set out to condemn an entire nation for the crime of letting committed partners share a life of monogamy with one another.
The irony of the whole thing is that I sat down in that particular interview to discuss the passages from Leviticus and Romans that conservatives who don’t know Greek or Hebrew cite when attacking homosexuality. But Brownback didn’t know them.
After gay rights groups attacked Brownback for what they mistook as a direct slur and correctly understood as anti-gay sentiment, I called those groups and told them they had the details wrong. Then I wrote the senator, with whom I’d been in contact for a few months.
Which means — connect the dots — Senator Brownback’s public statement is a lie. He knows what I thought. But he lied to protect himself. To be honest, I didn’t think he’d do that. I thought that despite the fuzzy basis of his religious beliefs, he was at least committed to them.
Kansans, you decide.
Jeff – when you discuss Leviticus you should also ask if they eat cheeseburgers. After all, they are an abomination in the eyes of God. As with shrimp, pork, etc. And we better lock away our women while they are “unclean”
Exactly how has Brownback abandoned Kansas? The man stands on his principles and is demonized by the left wingers who really just don’t get it.
Jeff, sounds like much ado about nothing. FYI, most Christian clergy interpret scripture from the Greek.
Ben Huie, your lame interpretations of scripture show your ignorance and are amuzing.
Sam Brownback is a poser, a shill and a luantic.
I thank the earlier poster that showed Brownbacks ignorance of the bible, even as he so unabashedly shills “for GOd”
Please please please let the GOP nominate him for President! Kansas will be rid of him, he will lose badly, and it will thus be shown that he is not some instrument of God. Maybe he can then go find some deluded folks and form a church where he can channel God.
NoJoCo – do you deny the accuracy of my statements regarding the contents of the Book of Leviticus?
Better go sacrifice a bull to get in God’s good graces again, Ben!
NoJoCo: “Exactly how has Brownback abandoned Kansas?”
E-mail me your fax number, and I’ll be more than happy to send you a stellar example.
Ben: If you want to stay ignorant of Christianity, then fine. But please don’t keep quoting from Old Testament scripture like you are making some kind of point. It only shows your ignorance.
The Old Testament law does not apply to Christians. We are under Grace not the law.
Thanks Outlander.
Ben,Christ came to fulfill the law of the Old Testament and to create a new covenant with humanity. Does that mean that the Old Testament laws are automatically null and void?
Obvioulsy there were laws that were meant for His chosen people – the Jews. Laws pertaining to animal sacrifice were no longer necessary because the ultimate, perfect sacrifice – Jesus’ death on the cross – was more than enough to pay for the sins of everyone.
We continue to sin. We all have the sin nature that is passed down. Jesus said that if you think in your heart about murdering someone, you are just as guilty as actually doing it. What He was saying is that there isn’t much that we do that isn’t sinfull. He came to take the burden of all of our sins upon Himself and thus all of our sins are forgiven. So does that mean that we can go out and just do whatever we want because we have a free pass?When He spoke to the woman who had been caught in adultry, he told her to go and sin no more – don’t committ addultry any longer was His point.
The entire Bible and Christianity today revolves around what Christ did.
The jews are emphatically NOT God’s chosen people!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Thank you Outlander. The problem is that I see many self-described Christians quote that Book. In fact, I seem to recall Christ saying He came to fulfill the Law; not to replace it. If you were to bother to read Jeff’s comments to which I responded you would note that he and Brownback has used Leviticus as well as Saul (alias Paul)
As for the New Testament all we have are the writings of Saul (alias Paul) on the subject. Christ seemed to focus more on love and forgiveness than on condemnation. He also alluded to separation with His “Caeser/God” statement.
Once again Ben, since you seem to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you hold as credible to qoute, please tell us which parts you accept and don’t accept as truth.
It is hard to tell when you imply Pauls writings are not to be qouted nor parts of the OT yet then use certain scriptures of Jesus words (out of context non the less)
It seems to me that you just use what ever seems convienent at the time to prove whichever point you have against Christianity or Christians.
My point is Nathan that we should not be writing our laws based on any scripture – not the Torah, not the New Testament, not the Koran. I don’t really know which parts are true nor do I know which of the many writers are speaking the “Word of God” They all CLAIM to be, including the Prophet Muhammed.
You can quote Paul all you want; I just don’t think that we should use his words to effectuate the “establishment of religion” by enshrining it into statute.
k,Sorry, atheism isn’t a religion, it’s simply the absence of a particular delusion.
did anybody read the article? I’m a trying christian and i agree with some of his basic ideas, but some of the groups and clubs he belongs to concern me.
we have had this discussion at church about social sin and the need to change it through laws ie racism, voting rights, but i think Sam is taking all this to far.
While god does judge, contrary to popular belief on here, he also loves unconditionally and forgives. I didn’t see alot of that in the article. As for the article its coming from Rolling Stone makes me wonder on saeveral fronts.
lots of questions for me
Outlander – “The Old Testament law does not apply to Christians. We are under Grace not the law.”
Then why did Pharisee Phred quote Isaih last night on KAKE? Why is one of the three Scripture readings in Mass Old Testament? Why does Sunday School include stories about Moses, Jonah, Noah, etc? No, Outlander, I don’t think the Old Testament is eliminated, at least not in the Christian churches I grew up in.
Nathan – I have nothing “against Christianity or Christians” as you lyingly claim. I DO, however, have a problem with the Phelpsians, Foxians, etc, who would shove their beliefs upon others.
Lets try it this way: I like meat. Nothing better than a nice juicy steak for dinner. I don’t want a vegetarian Hindu prohibiting that. Does that mean I have something against Hindus ot Hinduism? NO! They are perfectly free to not eat meat, just not to impose that on me. I like BBQ spare-ribs. Jews don’t approve of pork. As long as they leave me alone I have no rpoblem there either. At my Parish dances alcohol is routinely served. Well, should my Muslim friends be allowed to get a law passed prohibiting that? Not in my world I hope. I also do not drink alcohol; does that give me the right to prohibit others from enjoying the beverage? NO!
No, nathan, I do NOT have anything “against Christianity or Christians”; just in the attempts of a few to force their interpretation onto the rest of us. The reverend Phelps has called for execution of “Sodomites” and condemns divorce. That is fine with me as long as he doesn’t get to force those views on the rest of us.
Ben: No one said that the Old Testament is not important or quotable. After all, it is God’s Word. I said only that we are not under Old Testament law. Christians are under a New Covenant established by Christ.
I appreciate your interest and I hope that you want to learn more. But using the Bible to argue your points when you don’t understand the subject is pointless.
Scott: I have not gotten through the entire article yet. However, I think that you are wise to consider the source (Rolling Stone) when evaluating the content.
Outlander – in a way you make my point. Having grown up Christian myself (as you presumably have as well) I have my own understanding and I think that it is you who are mistaken. For example, the 10 Commandments apply to Christians even though they are “Old” rather than “New.” That is what I was taught in Sunday School many years ago and the required Bible readings in school every morning included both King James testaments. The required daily prayer was the Protestant version of the Lord’s Prayer.
My only point is that neither your nor my interpretation should be forced into law. And DEFINITELY not Phelps’ interpretation of Christianity. Would you say that he doesn’t understand that which appears to have been his life’s work?
And yes, by the way, I always want to learn more; both about my own religion and others as well. Then I might begin to understand the myriad ways that God has tried to communicate with humanity over the millenea. (mis-spelled I’m sure)
Ben: I don’t mean to offend, or pry, but I’m interested that you grew up Christian, since from some of your posts, I gathered that you have some animosity toward Christianity. Is my perception wrong? I suppose one explanation is that you are now of another faith. Just curious, and feel free not to answer.
Ben,
I am going to jump out on a limb and speak for Outlander and he can clear it up if need be.
When he says we are under a New Covenant it doesn’t mean the Old Testament is invalid.
Actually, if you read the New Testament it is pretty clear on what parts of the Old Testament LAW are not needed to be followed anymore.
It is called context. Our relationship with God changed after Christ came to die for our sins.
Before Christ came we sacrificed offerings for our sins, Christ was the ultimate sacrifice.
Just as we no longer sacrifice things for our sins, other parts of the law were no longer needed for us to be pure and have relation with God.
Has nothing to do with the 10 commandments the way you describe.
I still find it hard to believe that you were teaching about the Bible and you don’t even grasp the concept of the New Covenant.
Has nothing to do with the simplicity of “Old rather than New” and neither Outlander nor I would say it was that simple.
Ben, I’m jealous.NoJoCo won’t respond to my post:)
Nathan – I am very familiar with the new Covenant. Maybe it’s the Phelpses who are not. My thing, which I’ll say again, is that I don’t want someone’s interpretation made into civil law.
By the way, I do not seek to “teach the Bible”; I simply note that various of those who do seem to have differing interpretations of its meaning. In fact, there are significant differences of opinion over the years of what Books should be included in the collection and which should not be. Add to that, of course, the problems inherent in multiple translations and it becomes difficult at times to discern precise meaning, at least in my opinion. That is why I seek advice from different sources including (but not limited to) Priests, Pastors, Rabbis, etc.
Ben,
You make it sound like the majority of Christianity is having problems with transaltions and such.
It is the opposite. The Bible has been found to be like 99% accurate in its transaltions.
There are many different versions of the Bible, which don’t translate the meaning differently, they just tell it in different words for better understanding.
Yes, there are a couple of Bible translations which intentionally manipulate the text, but not due to translational errors, human distortion instead.
Oh,
If you are very familiar with the New Convenant then why do you make statements about the 10 commandments like Outlander is saying they are invalid when he was talking about the New Covenant?
Outlander – you are 100% wrong. No animosity, not another faith. I do, however, have animosity from certain of those who claim to speak for Christians – e.g.Phelps.
Nathan – “The Old Testament law does not apply to Christians.” Direct quote from outlander. Therefore, since the 10 are of the Old testament they “do not apply to Christians”. I am not saying anything; only directly quoting. “does not apply” sounds a lot like “invalid” in this context.
Where did you get the 99% figure?
After the dead sea acrolls were unearthed, many theologians and Bible scholars compared their text to that of the translated Bible of the time.
They found that the previous translation of the Bible when compared to that of the just unearthed dead sea scrolls was about 99% accurate in it’s translation.
That is the jist of it.
I might be off by a point or two on the 99%. It is within tolerance though :)
I’d be curious to see the details on that. I do recall that present-day translations were taken back to earliest available documents when King James was less rigorous and often relied on “translations of translations”
I am told this is why Muslims are required to learn Arabic so they can read their Book in its language. I can get a a translation to English but it is not really considered authentic if i were trying to actually practice their faith.
Well, the translation question is much less important than the culture question.
Jesus and the writers of the New Testament lived in world far different from our own.
Trying to make sense out Biblical passages without looking at the historical context is like a primitive tribe reading “Hamlet.”
For once I agree with you Proudlib.
Context is very important indeed.
PL,
Let me guess, you want the Bible and Christian doctrine to be living and breathing entities like the Constitution, right?
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
Ben: I don’t think that you get it. The nature of sin has not changed. Regardless, as Christians we are not under judgement for failure to keep the law. No one is capable of doing that. Christ has taken that burden upon himself.
I am also glad Ben, that you hold no animosity toward Christians.
I recognize that outlander; however I do take a bit more responsibility for my sins and do not count on the burden being automatically removed without making amends myself. That, however, is my code and I am not allowed to enforce that upon others.
BTW, you might recall that on another thread I pointed out the tremendous work done by Catholic Crarities, Salvation Army and others. They are DEFINITELY doing the true work of God in my opinion. Regardless on where we might end up in a philisophical discussion. And I support those groups in their work without reservation. (along with United Methodist and several others)
There is a big difference between animus and not wanting a group to rule. For example, ‘my’ Priest is a wonderful man and I value his counsel. However, I do not want him running the government. In fact, another reason for separation IMO is that we need Church keeping State honest and vice versa. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” If church/state merge and then stray there is no watchdog. With them separated we have the churches, synagogues, mosques all fracturing the “absolute power” and helping to keep things in check. I COUNT on the Church to fill that role.
I guess I am just having trouble seeing what group of Christians if any at all want to take over government or merge church and state.
My ex-brother-in-law for one is an open and *very* vocal advocate of the idea of breaking down what he calls the anti-American wall of separation of Church and State. He insists it’s not in the US Constitution and is therefore unsupportable constitutionally.
When reminded that his stance is likely radical with respect to the American mainstream, he consistently responds with something along the lines of “Christian theocracy is neither illegal nor shameful.”
His church is a rapidly growing evangelical one in northern McPherson county.
He’s a natural leader and will likely end up a pastor in his faith – at a minimum.
He also agrees with about 85% of what Fred Phelps and the Phelps clan expouse, so go figure.
It’a hardly a stretch, under the ‘leadership’ of President Bush, to extrapolate from my ex-brother-in-law to the plurality formed by a majority of white male Republican voters and the portion of frightened female voters who support President Bush and his agenda of a just and pre-emptive war waged whenever ‘necessary’ and, from the viewpoint of this coalition, see why the GOP is successful.
$0.02
Brownback is a fool. I emailed him awhile back concerned about the illegal people taking over our country. He said that he was all for the illegals that they added to our financial stability